Back, well with regards of our campaign, its our first time, we learned so many things in the past few weeks. We are working with our prototype and will probably rerun the campaign. No need to be sarcastic mr. unit187. You don't know whats going in our mind and there are numbers of people failed in kickstarter. We just don't lose hope.
We uploaded a new video, if we can provide the prototype in the next 2 weeks, we might get more people interested on it.
The idea of kick starter was never really to get money up-front for an interesting idea
That's not really true. Look at their site: they say it's a way "to fund creative projects", not "to finish creative projects". They talk about projects "brought to life", not "seen to completion". But really, the hint is in the name - a kickstart comes at the start of the journey, taking the vehicle from a complete standstill to motion.
The idea was to make projects possible that were previously impossible by providing an alternative source of funding - not to be a glorified pre-sales site or a place for rich companies to apply for an extra top-up of cash.
The idea of kick starter was never really to get money up-front for an interesting idea
That's not really true. Look at their site: they say it's a way "to fund creative projects", not "to finish creative projects". They talk about projects "brought to life", not "seen to completion". But really, the hint is in the name - a kickstart comes at the start of the journey, taking the vehicle from a complete standstill to motion.
The idea was to make projects possible that were previously impossible by providing an alternative source of funding - not to be a glorified pre-sales site or a place for rich companies to apply for an extra top-up of cash.
emphasis mine.
What I meant was that, in general, having an idea alone is not a recipe for successfully running a Kickstarter. We don't see waves of newbies succeeding on Kickstarter with their idea for a great MMORPG, after all.
It is meant, as you said, as a means to fund projects that would not otherwise come to fruition, but it wasn't meant as a funding source for grandiose delusions any more than it was meant to be a glorified pre-order mechanism. Regardless of how loosely their mission statement might be interpreted, it would be poisonous to their business if the bar were so low that nearly any "good idea" got funded. Of course, its ultimately the backers who decide what's worthwhile, so Kickstarter themselves are insulated as long as they've enforced their own guidelines, but their brand would still be diluted.
Mostly my statement is a backlash against unproven, would-be indie devs who see it as a way to profit before they've really committed to doing the hard work, or possibly even without understanding the depth of the work involved. Granted, we don't see a dearth of complete non-starters, and there are many a modest Kickstarter that goes unfunded despite demonstrable progress and polish, so the system seems to be working (in the sense that it's appropriately skeptical, and not just spending like so many drunken sailors), I just mean that those would-be indies shouldn't look at Kickstarter like "If I get funding, *then* I can do my game." -- I say take a run at a Kickstarter when you think you're ready, but pursue that game regardless, and if the first Kickstarter fails, come back and try again when you have more to show.
The idea of kick starter was never really to get money up-front for an interesting idea
That's not really true. Look at their site: they say it's a way "to fund creative projects", not "to finish creative projects". They talk about projects "brought to life", not "seen to completion". But really, the hint is in the name - a kickstart comes at the start of the journey, taking the vehicle from a complete standstill to motion.
The idea was to make projects possible that were previously impossible by providing an alternative source of funding - not to be a glorified pre-sales site or a place for rich companies to apply for an extra top-up of cash.
emphasis mine.
What I meant was that, in general, having an idea alone is not a recipe for successfully running a Kickstarter. We don't see waves of newbies succeeding on Kickstarter with their idea for a great MMORPG, after all.
It is meant, as you said, as a means to fund projects that would not otherwise come to fruition, but it wasn't meant as a funding source for grandiose delusions any more than it was meant to be a glorified pre-order mechanism. Regardless of how loosely their mission statement might be interpreted, it would be poisonous to their business if the bar were so low that nearly any "good idea" got funded. Of course, its ultimately the backers who decide what's worthwhile, so Kickstarter themselves are insulated as long as they've enforced their own guidelines, but their brand would still be diluted.
Mostly my statement is a backlash against unproven, would-be indie devs who see it as a way to profit before they've really committed to doing the hard work, or possibly even without understanding the depth of the work involved. Granted, we don't see a dearth of complete non-starters, and there are many a modest Kickstarter that goes unfunded despite demonstrable progress and polish, so the system seems to be working (in the sense that it's appropriately skeptical, and not just spending like so many drunken sailors), I just mean that those would-be indies shouldn't look at Kickstarter like "If I get funding, *then* I can do my game." -- I say take a run at a Kickstarter when you think you're ready, but pursue that game regardless, and if the first Kickstarter fails, come back and try again when you have more to show.
Very well said, we learned so many things this past few weeks. This week we will decide do cancel the campaign and proceed to the prototype then we will re run it.
